If you want evidence about this being a waste of time, ask NAS to provide it, he has before. You don't need to come up with a cockamamie list to prove your point. If you choose to use the list above to prove a point, I believe you will prove something, however your point is so small, it won't be visible from 2 inches away.

It is not a waste of time to speculate about things that interest you. It is a waste of time to try offer approval or disapproval on the topics of interest to others. But please, feel free to tell me what you believe has been proven when the experiment is over.

"knowledgeable sources" are usually seeking readers to pay for their "guesses". Kevin Allen is often a bit flaky, but his comment on Chicago having "four lines that can play" points out one of the Bruins failures in not improving both the 3rd and 4th lines. The 3rd could be solved in-house with Paille, but the 4th really needs to give Campbell some help even if Paille doesn't move to the 3rd. Loyalty alone won't cut it in this shortened season.

If you want evidence about this being a waste of time, ask NAS to provide it, he has before. You don't need to come up with a cockamamie list to prove your point. If you choose to use the list above to prove a point, I believe you will prove something, however your point is so small, it won't be visible from 2 inches away.

It is not a waste of time to speculate about things that interest you. It is a waste of time to try offer approval or disapproval on the topics of interest to others. But please, feel free to tell me what you believe has been proven when the experiment is over.

Keep reading here for the next month for your answer. Then go out and buy a sci-fi fiction book to read and you'll get the same results.

I could care less of who's approval I got. If there's a name out there that pops up & it's an interesting one of whether he'd be a fit on the B's I'll type about it. I don't have a gun to anybody's head whether they waste their time to read about it, or respond. Nobody has a monoply on this forum no matter how much some of them think they do. Trade speculation is part of this sport. Everybody has players that may not play on the B's, but they wish they did.

I could care less of who's approval I got. If there's a name out there that pops up & it's an interesting one of whether he'd be a fit on the B's I'll type about it. I don't have a gun to anybody's head whether they waste their time to read about it, or respond. Nobody has a monoply on this forum no matter how much some of them think they do. Trade speculation is part of this sport. Everybody has players that may not play on the B's, but they wish they did.

And nobody has a monopoly on whether comments can be made about the dumb trade ideas that are brought up here either.

I'll leave that up to you, I here you are good at retrieveing phantom posts. Posters heard that Ryder was on the block, mentioned it on a post and then Michael was traded so the post was correct, it's that simple.

I could care less of who's approval I got. If there's a name out there that pops up & it's an interesting one of whether he'd be a fit on the B's I'll type about it. I don't have a gun to anybody's head whether they waste their time to read about it, or respond. Nobody has a monoply on this forum no matter how much some of them think they do. Trade speculation is part of this sport. Everybody has players that may not play on the B's, but they wish they did.

And nobody has a monopoly on whether comments can be made about the dumb trade ideas that are brought up here either.

I could care less of who's approval I got. If there's a name out there that pops up & it's an interesting one of whether he'd be a fit on the B's I'll type about it. I don't have a gun to anybody's head whether they waste their time to read about it, or respond. Nobody has a monoply on this forum no matter how much some of them think they do. Trade speculation is part of this sport. Everybody has players that may not play on the B's, but they wish they did.

And nobody has a monopoly on whether comments can be made about the dumb trade ideas that are brought up here either.

Don't like it DONT READ IT!

Uhhhh..........you just read something you didn't like ...........and commented on it.

I'll leave that up to you, I here you are good at retrieveing phantom posts. Posters heard that Ryder was on the block, mentioned it on a post and then Michael was traded so the post was correct, it's that simple.

Burned again...

5....4....3....2..........^^^^^.

Imaginary trades that are player x traded for player y is my beef. Not whether a player is speculated to be moved.

Imaginary trades that are player x traded for player y is my beef. Not whether a player is speculated to be moved.

Ryder was traded for another player, so part of the trade was filling in the Y. Just picture Bergevin, Nieuwendyk or any other GM standing front of a whiteboard. My X player (Cole or Ryder) traded for player Y (with several players next to the letter that the GMs scouts liked).

I kinda thought that a Bruins hockey forum was where someone would go to speculate and exercise some wishful thinking regarding their favorite hockey team. What is with the stamp of approval nonsense, this ain't the DMV. If you haven't figured it out yet mostly everyone on here is an over the top mental case, otherwise you wouldn't be here in the first place. It's like going to Wal-mart at night and thinking how f'd up everyone around you is...then you realize you're there also.

I mean you got a guy who preaches that the PP isn't that important, followed by 300 additional comments actually debating that absurdity, and then following up that gem by making judgments on the stupidity of others posts...get it?

For all you pu on this post people, aren't you interested to see what happens in the trade suggestion tracker? Aren't we all wasting our time here when we could be feedling the homeless or providing shelter to the hungry or finding Buy Boucher a plastic surgeon?

At the end of this exercise, I'll have more fun keeping track of the speculations than I will commenting on the speculation threads.

Imaginary trades that are player x traded for player y is my beef. Not whether a player is speculated to be moved.

Ryder was traded for another player, so part of the trade was filling in the Y. Just picture Bergevin, Nieuwendyk or any other GM standing front of a whiteboard. My X player (Cole or Ryder) traded for player Y (with several players next to the letter that the GMs scouts liked).

Even you should be able to rap your brain around that.

If I could understand the point you're trying to make I'd comment. I have no idea what this has to with what I just posted.